This article highlights the experiences and lessons generated by the project collaborators in enhancing the adaptive capacities of selected upland farming communities in Southeast Asia. The project collaborators employed capability building programs, such as farmers' and technicians' training, local climate change awareness programs, cross-farm visits, demonstration plots showcasing agroforestry technologies as climate change adaptation (CCA) strategies, and linking science with policies
This booklet is the third in the CIAT in Asia Research for Development series. It was based on the experiences of researchers and farmers working with the AusAID-funded Forages for Smallholders Project (FSP) in Southeast Asia from 1995 to 1999. This project was a partnership of smallholder farmers, development workers and researchers who were using participatory approaches to developing forage technologies on farms.
A Community Innovation Fund (CIF) is a simple kick-start fund to support farmer interest groups who have limited access to formal financial services for implementing climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices. A CIF can be implemented as sole fund or as co-investment to community savings and loans groups. In this publication, a step-by-step guide for facilitating a CIF in a community, based on experiences from My Loi Climate-Smart Village (CSV), was provided. My Loi is one of three CCAFS CSVs in Vietnam, where participatory CSA practices are being tested and adopted.
This chapter explores the interrelationships between economic change and environmental issues, by showing how aspiration, education, and migration are variously connected to a loss of agroecological knowledges for rural young people. It reviews a series of case studies from Vietnam, India, and China on the implications for rural youth of changed aspirations and ecological and economic stress. The economic and cultural pressures of globalization mean young people increasingly aspire for a life outside of agrarian- and natural resource-based livelihoods.
The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) financed the second Cordillera Highland Agricultural Resource Management Project (CHARMP2), in areas where poverty is most severe among indigenous peoples in the highlands of the Cordillera Region in northern Philippines. The aim is to reduce poverty and improve the livelihoods of indigenous peoples living in farming communities in the mountainous project area. The indigenous peoples consist of many tribes whose main economic activity is agriculture.
Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) and short organic supply chains have emerged as promising solutions for smallholder farmers to provide organic produce to nearby consumers. PGS is an institutional innovation that builds trust among producers, traders and consumers through a low-cost transparent and participatory certification mechanism. They have particularly gained a foothold among smallholder farmers in middle- income countries, where third-party certification costs are often unaffordable.
The Northern Mountainous Region (NMR) of Vietnam is characterised by great physical, social and cultural diversity. It covers a large geographical area, is home to many ethnic minority populations, has an under-developed infrastructure with low levels of urbanisa-tion, and agricultural production plays a highly important role. Since the 1950s, Vi-etnam’s agricultural sector has had several ups and downs due to being significantly in-fluenced by shifting national policies.
In Vietnam, while glutinous rice farming represents a very small sub-sector of rice production, it plays an important role in the food and cultural security of farming households in many remote areas. This paper examined glutinous rice farming in households, as a food and for cultural security, and the extension services in areas producing glutinous rice. Data were collected from 400 local farmers based on interview schedules and statistical analysis using the percentage, arithmetic mean, and hypothesis testing with logistic regression
Competing models of innovation informing agricultural extension, such as transfer of technology, participatory extension and technology development, and innovation systems have been proposed over the last decades. These approaches are often presented as antagonistic or even mutually exclusive. This article shows how practitioners in a rural innovation system draw on different aspects of all three models, while creating a distinct local practice and discourse. We revisit and deepen the critique of Vietnam’s “model” approach to upland rural development, voiced a decade ago in this journal.